|
I know some places have the city own most condo buildings and you just buy your unit from them but they're in charge of maintaining the building and all that. The fees are way lower than what we pay here because I guess it's more efficient that way, and the buildings/common spaces tend to be a bit more spartan. You can even just choose to rent or buy depending on your situation. There also seems to be wayyyyy more leeway for what you can do in your unit in terms of modifications or enclosing a balcony and poo poo like that. Just like the city maintains the streets/sidewalks and you buy a house, the city maintains the elevators and hallways and you buy your condo. No busy-body strata council constant raising fees to pay for useless poo poo, no internal drama. Well only a little internal drama as it seems each building DOES actually have some sort of voted in body to be the official contact people with he city and report problems and sometimes they have a small budget to handle the things not totally covered by the city. I kind of like this system because it really does seem to keep costs down and you've got a single efficient central body in charge of all the upkeep with a very long-term minded vision. Obviously all it takes is a few corrupt governments to award upkeep contracts to business allies and poo poo like that and the system starts to break down so I guess north America couldn't handle a system like that at all. Then again when a big percentage of the voters in the city live in government owned condos they're going to vote people like that the gently caress out and be much more aware of that sort of thing.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:45 |
|
|
Count Roland posted:I've only been a member of these boards for a short time, and I've already seen the word neoliberal here more times than I've seen it anywhere else in the past year. It normally only comes up if I come across something written by Chomsky, or someone who is talking about free trade and protest movements. I'm not yet sure why it is so common here compared to other forums where I discuss politics. I know; you can't make it through a whole page on the Canadian politics thread without seeing it at least once. Occasionally see it on reddit, too. I call it a pejorative because it would never, ever, be used by a person that it describes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Today in municipal governments that think they're awesome at buying and selling real estate: The funniest part of this is the assessment for literally any plot of land in the entire province is available online. All someone had to do at city council was look it up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
HookShot posted:The funniest part of this is the assessment for literally any plot of land in the entire province is available online. All someone had to do at city council was look it up. Plus the municipal tax bill for that land, which is based on the assessment, is something that the city really should have access too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
quote:“The soft benefits of owing a principal residence with your family should not be overlooked,” he adds. “You cannot put a price on pride of ownership, control of your environment and stability.” https://www.theglobeandmail.com/glo...rticle14867887/ quote:Assets: These people are 50. PRIDE OF OWNERSHIP Y'ALL
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
^ Jesus, the cash flow from those assets, invested properly, would easily cover renting wherever the hell they want in Vancouver, and then some. They are idiots for sitting in cash. edit: Also, I question the wisdom of a doctor having a fairly large RRSP when he will undoubtedly have a fat pension, and also - would have been able to keep those earnings within his practice corporation instead... but alas, doctors are not especially known for their financial prowess. Lexicon fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Oct 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
$313,573 cash savings... just.. 300k sitting in a bank account? These people are sitting on over a million. They are obscenely rich, they can buy and rent and do what ever they want. Who cares, they don't have to be frugal with their money anymore or worry about anything at this point. Why did they have to use such a crazy example?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:$313,573 cash savings... just.. 300k sitting in a bank account? Interesting things in this case study: 1) I'd expect a 50 year old doctor to have way more in savings. This seems low to me. 2) These 'advisors' are advocating that this couple dump ~40% of their net worth into buying a house. As Lexicon has mentioned, with a little proper management, they could easily yield their rent and then some. Could one say the same for pouring all this money into a million dollar house in Vancouver? Pride of ownership trumps prudent finance I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
Neoliberals are all about privatisation and deregulation, which is exactly why you would see it in a housing thread. How is that hard to understand?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:$313,573 cash savings... just.. 300k sitting in a bank account?  Those poor rich people! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Neoliberals are all about privatisation and deregulation, which is exactly why you would see it in a housing thread. How is that hard to understand? You've entirely missed the point. I was referring exclusively to the peculiar nature of the term itself (only ever used online, only ever used by opponents of the thing it represents, etc). I don't want to derail the thread any more than I already have about this, so if you want to discuss it further, I'm happy to participate in a new thread or DM.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Interesting things in this case study: The sign of a quality financial adviser is when they recommend that you take out a loan that you can pay back just in time to retire at 65, instead of a plan that allows you take your 1.2 million and retire earlier (or now).
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:The sign of a quality financial adviser is when they recommend that you take out a loan that you can pay back just in time to retire at 65, instead of a plan that allows you take your 1.2 million and retire earlier (or now). Another sign, the phrase "You cannot put a price on...." while discussing a financial transaction, from a person ostensibly versed in the concept of opportunity cost. VV Yeah, that's precisely the subtext of my post here. Lexicon fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Oct 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
You CAN put a price on those things. "How much is pride of ownership worth to you? Here's what it's going to cost you in opportunity costs vs renting". You can put a price on just about anything. It's almost like someone in finance should maybe have some sort of inclination about that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
e: ignore
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
Can someone here explain what, if anything, I'm missing here? I keep crunching the numbers and I just can't seem to find a way to justify renting a larger space in Toronto. Any house or large apartment with 3+ bedrooms that aren't smaller than jail cells typically rent out for $2,200+ in any neighbourhood that we'd like to live in. To buy, we're budgeting for $400K. Houses only. No condo fee bullshit. Pickins are slim, but there are options. Using the NY Times Calc with the default appreciation values, we'd be ahead in five years, and $1M better off in 30. Even in a doom-and-gloom scenario where we're losing 10% value annually for three decades, we'd still be slightly ahead in the end. The only way to make it a losing proposition is if rent drops to a 1% annual increase (while we're losing 10% annually). I simply can't imagine a world where you can rent a house in Toronto for $3,000/month or buy for $16,000 though. More realistically, if we were losing 1% annually and rent was going up 1% annually, in 30 we'd be like $40K ahead by buying, basically dead even. We're not speculators and we're not planning on moving any time soon, so that 30 year timeline is actually meaningful for us. Yeah, it might suck to wake up one day and suddenly lose $100K of our home's value, but honestly, I don't see it sitting there stagnant for 20 years thereafter, and I just don't see rent stagnating in the city that long either. What the hell is missing from this equation? As an aside, I loving hate this. We've been sitting back for years waiting for the hammer to fall on this god drat market while we try to cram our lives into a loving 1-bedroom apartment with a stunning view of the loving DVP. I just feel like before we know it we'll be in our fifties and the market will finally crash and we'll shout with joy that now is finally the right time to buy the house of our dreams and we will fill all four stunning bedrooms with cats. How's the saying go? "Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain fertile." man thats gross fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Oct 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
If you're just comparing rent payments to mortgage payments the. You're missing a lot of additional costs associated with home ownership.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 15:16
|
|
|
man thats gross posted:To buy $400K. Houses only. The thousands you will be spending making this
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:If you're just comparing rent payments to mortgage payments the. You're missing a lot of additional costs associated with home ownership. This was including mortgage interest (used the default 5.5% despite rates currently being lower to account for future fluctuations), 0.8% property tax, 4% buying and 6% selling closing costs, 0.5% insurance, 1% annual for maintenance and renovations, and $200 monthly utilities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
man thats gross posted:This was including mortgage interest (used the default 5.5% despite rates currently being lower to account for future fluctuations), 0.8% property tax, 4% buying and 6% selling closing costs, 0.5% insurance, 1% annual for maintenance and renovations, and $200 monthly utilities. I see small bungalows listed in Mimico/Etobicoke in the low 400s all the time. You can knock it down and build something nice in a few years and the neighbourhood is great.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 16:14
|
|
|
man thats gross posted:This was including mortgage interest (used the default 5.5% despite rates currently being lower to account for future fluctuations), 0.8% property tax, 4% buying and 6% selling closing costs, 0.5% insurance, 1% annual for maintenance and renovations, and $200 monthly utilities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
man thats gross posted:This was including mortgage interest (used the default 5.5% despite rates currently being lower to account for future fluctuations), 0.8% property tax, 4% buying and 6% selling closing costs, 0.5% insurance, 1% annual for maintenance and renovations, and $200 monthly utilities. I've been lurking in this thread and I will explain something to you. No matter how you do the numbers, no matter how much they are in your favour, no matter what your life situation is, this thread will always argue and grasp any straws that it is better to rent than it is to buy and you are an Flavor-aid drinking idiot if you think otherwise. If the numbers work out in your favour then do it. The only thing I can think of is that the housing market might fall out badly in Toronto but it sounds like you got that accounted for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
spacemost posted:What about an average 7% annual ROI from investing the difference between renting and owning, including investing the initial lump sums that would have comprised your closing costs? By year 11, annual out of pocket costs are even. So take that $80K down payment and $16K for closing costs, and to be generous, add an extra $5k for the difference renting would have saved you every year (even though the difference starts at $5K and tapers off until year 11), you're looking at $286K after 11 years, a net gain of $190K. That's about $40K better than where you'd be if you bought, but from that point forward, you're spending more money by renting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
Sovy Kurosei posted:I've been lurking in this thread and I will explain something to you. No matter how you do the numbers, no matter how much they are in your favour, no matter what your life situation is, this thread will always argue and grasp any straws that it is better to rent than it is to buy and you are an Flavor-aid drinking idiot if you think otherwise. On the contrary: if a potential purchaser is aware of the risk, the historical and international comparisons, etc, and decides anyway that their life situation mandates owning physical property, then I'd say our work is done. Not sure where the "grasp any straws" jibe comes from, as I've not read any housing-bear argument here that wasn't backed up by fairly compelling evidence. (Should I deduce from your tone that you work in an industry related to Canadian real estate, or would that be too presumptuous?)
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
I personally cannot imagine remaining illiquid for 30 years, so I have a hard time weighing in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
man thats gross posted:By year 11, annual out of pocket costs are even. So take that $80K down payment and $16K for closing costs, and to be generous, add an extra $5k for the difference renting would have saved you every year (even though the difference starts at $5K and tapers off until year 11), you're looking at $286K after 11 years, a net gain of $190K. That's about $40K better than where you'd be if you bought, but from that point forward, you're spending more money by renting. There are plenty of online spreadsheets available that you can use to find out if a particular property is better off as a purchase over renting. Just be realistic with the numbers you use. Hope that wasn't too grasping.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:I personally cannot imagine remaining illiquid for 30 years, so I have a hard time weighing in. Yeah it's amusing for in the increasingly unstable economy to talk about breaking even 10-12 years out
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
spacemost posted:Reminds me of this timeless classic from the WSJ: I would give all of my pride in ownership to find the HENRY offenses gif version someone made of this comic. Buying a house is probably the #1 cause of HENRYs in the entire first world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Today in municipal governments that think they're awesome at buying and selling real estate: Pulling this from the last page because I am an assessor and this sort of thing is not uncommon or surprising at all, especially for land which is to be re-zoned and incorporated into some municipal development. There's nothing about the situation to suggest to me that the town got ripped off in any way. That article isn't exactly clear on this point but it seems that the current zoning of the land was for agricultural use? The assessment would have to reflect the major restrictions on development potential that a lot with that type of zoning would have. The administration of Langley Town probably directed the appraisers to prepare the report with the assumption that the re-zoning would go through and the lands would be part of this development area they are planning - you could bet that the property owners would have been aware of this pending development and would not have sold the property at a price reflecting it's current permitted use. A side observation would be that assessments in BC are prepared by a provincial authority as opposed to a municipal ran assessment department. I know BC assessment has close to a thousand people working for them, but it's not enough to prepare an accurate site-specific value for every one of the millions on parcels of land in the province annually. An appraisal is always going to be a much better indicator of market value then simply looking at the assessed value. Starsfan fucked around with this message at 10:50 on Oct 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 10:48
|
|
|
man thats gross posted:Can someone here explain what, if anything, I'm missing here? Are the "to rent" and "to buy" areas exactly the same? Wouldn't rent in the areas of Toronto with $400k houses be lower as well? By stretching your suitability criteria for homeownership you might regret the neighbourhood choice a lot sooner than ten years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 13:52
|
|
|
Bedroom communities are all the same, just stay away from garbage dumps, sewage reprocessing and college residences and you can just ignore everyone forever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 13:54
|
|
|
iv46vi posted:Are the "to rent" and "to buy" areas exactly the same? Wouldn't rent in the areas of Toronto with $400k houses be lower as well? By stretching your suitability criteria for homeownership you might regret the neighbourhood choice a lot sooner than ten years. If anything, I'm being more discriminating in my criteria for where to buy vs. where to rent. If I look in the exact same areas that we're trying to buy in for rentals, it's actually even worse for rentals. $2,500+ monthly. etalian posted:Yeah it's amusing for in the increasingly unstable economy to talk about breaking even 10-12 years out This is the point where monthly expenditures would roughly break even due to increasing rent, not some "break even" point for our personal finances. Kafka Esq. posted:I personally cannot imagine remaining illiquid for 30 years, so I have a hard time weighing in. That's a totally fair point. Life is different for everyone, but there is no way we're leaving in the foreseeable future. Our family is here, our friends are here, my wife has a good job with a good pension that's as stable as a mountain, making any choice to leave the city about 100x riskier for our finances than any choice that keeps us here. Barring a nuclear holocaust or the Second Coming of Christ or the Russians invading or something, 30 years in the same city is a pretty safe bet for us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
man thats gross posted:If anything, I'm being more discriminating in my criteria for where to buy vs. where to rent. If I look in the exact same areas that we're trying to buy in for rentals, it's actually even worse for rentals. $2,500+ monthly. So, using your original criteria of 3+ bedrooms, what you're saying is you're in Toronto and the monthly cost (as you've calculated) to buy a house/condo is lower than the monthly cost to rent a very similar house/condo in a very similar area after 5 years? Could you provide examples of the units you are looking at as rentals and the units you're looking at to buy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
ductonius posted:So, using your original criteria of 3+ bedrooms, what you're saying is you're in Toronto and the monthly cost (as you've calculated) to buy a house/condo is lower than the monthly cost to rent a very similar house/condo in a very similar area after 5 years? Not condo, to be clear. House. No condos. I absolutely refuse to deal with the bullshit of $600+ condo fees and buildings that may or may not be run by a gaggle of retarded apes. These places are within a few blocks of each other. http://beta.realtor.ca/propertyDetails.aspx?PropertyId=13752175 http://beta.realtor.ca/propertyDetails.aspx?PropertyId=13748833 Note that the rental is for a single floor... I'm not going to go crazy looking through MLS for more examples, but actual honest to god space is a loving non-starter for rentals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
man thats gross posted:Not condo, to be clear. House. No condos. I absolutely refuse to deal with the bullshit of $600+ condo fees and buildings that may or may not be run by a gaggle of retarded apes. The house is the tiniest 3 bedroom in existence. The "Master Bedroom" is all of 8 feet wide, which is barely enough room for a double, let alone a queen and forget a king. The other bedrooms are glorified closets. If it is going to be a 3 bedroom it should probably have the third bedroom in the basement, not on the second floor. The house would be a pain simply because they've shoehorned so much into it, which is why it's so cheap. It's also a half-duplex, which means you've always got that other side to gently caress things up for you. If you didn't like the idea of a condo I don't know why you'd go for that. If you are looking to justify buying a house, any house then go for it. However, the house and the rental you showed are not comparable. I'd live in the rental because it's got space. The house, I'd never rent or buy; the list of rooms is impressive, but they're all *tiny*. Find a comparable, actually detached, properly sized house for $400k and then you can say buying is better. Until then, you're working on confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. Double Edit: Actually, I was right ductonius fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Oct 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
ductonius posted:The house is the tiniest 3 bedroom in existence. The "Master Bedroom" is all of 8 feet wide, which is barely enough room for a double, let alone a queen and forget a king. The other bedrooms are glorified closets. If it is going to be a 3 bedroom it should probably have the third bedroom in the basement, not on the second floor. The house would be a pain simply because they've shoehorned so much into it, which is why it's so cheap. It's also a half-duplex, which means you've always got that other side to gently caress things up for you. If you didn't like the idea of a condo I don't know why you'd go for that. A "comparable" would be to purchase a single floor in a large home. Fine, you have more space. You're also sharing all outdoor space with two other tenants. There's a dollar value for privacy. It's also hard to find real comparable with so little on the market. I just picked the closest place on the map. Not so much confirmation bias as slim pickn's. This is probably closer to the kind of space you can rent if you want the whole house: http://beta.realtor.ca/propertyDetails.aspx?PropertyId=13680375 I'm against condos because they are overpriced in comparison to already-overpriced houses in Toronto, there are like a trillion new units that are going to be dumped on the market in the next five years, the condo fees are atrocious, there is no private outdoor space, and management could be a complete catastrofuck costing you tens of thousands through mismanagement and/or corruption. I don't love the idea of a semi, but we have to be realistic. Fully-detached homes cost an arm and a leg.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
Why not rent a condo?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
iv46vi posted:Why not rent a condo? Mostly because we want outdoor space, but also because the indoor space issue has become laughably worse in condos. http://beta.realtor.ca/propertyDetails.aspx?PropertyId=13644123 Not the same hood, but $2,200 for a 2+1 with a 4-foot-wide living room and an even smaller master bed than the house I linked. We've seen too many 2-bed-2-baths squeezed into condos no bigger than where we're living now to even consider it anymore. We need more space, not more walls.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
What it seems you actually want to buy is not a house, but the ability to say "get off my lawn". You can totally do this, just not in Toronto, not in your price range. V V V V V - Let's put it this way: If this guy was asking about Vancouver his best bet to find something in his price range would be to start looking in Chilliwack. ductonius fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Oct 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:45 |
|
|
ductonius posted:What it seems you actually want to buy is not a house, but the ability to say "get off my lawn". You can totally do this, just not in Toronto, not in your price range. The old American style big lawn for extra commuting time trade-off?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 18:56
|
|